Advertisement

Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective: Integrating Computational Thinking in K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

  • Irene LeeEmail author
  • Shuchi Grover
  • Fred Martin
  • Sarita Pillai
  • Joyce Malyn-Smith
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

This article provides an introduction for the special issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology focused on computational thinking (CT) from a disciplinary perspective. The special issue connects earlier research on what K-12 students can learn and be able to do using CT with the CT skills and habits of mind needed to productively participate in professional CT-integrated STEM fields. In this context, the phrase “disciplinary perspective” simultaneously holds two meanings: it refers to and aims to make connections between established K-12 STEM subject areas (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and newer CT-integrated disciplines such as computational sciences. The special issue presents a framework for CT integration and includes articles that illuminate what CT looks like from a disciplinary perspective, the challenges inherent in integrating CT into K-12 STEM education, and new ways of measuring CT aligned more closely with disciplinary practices. The aim of this special issue is to offer research-based and practitioner-grounded insights into recent work in CT integration and provoke new ways of thinking about CT integration from researchers, practitioners, and research-practitioner partnerships.

Keywords

Computational thinking Disciplinary perspective Integrating computational thinking K-12 science technology engineering and mathematics education 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aho, A. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55, 832–835.  https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074 https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1922682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Chesler, N. C. (2016). Teaching and assessing engineering design thinking with virtual internships and epistemic network analysis. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3B), 1492–1501.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benakli, N., Kostadinov, B., Satyanarayana, A., & Singh, S. (2016). Introducing computational thinking through hands-on projects using R with applications to calculus, probability and data analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(3), 393–427.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1254296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. (2015). Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(8), 1727–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuny, J., Snyder, L., and Wing, J. (2010). Computational thinking: a definition. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu › ~CompThink › resources › TheLinkWing on 10-14-19.
  7. Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  8. diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Emmott, S. & Rison, S. (2006). Towards 2020 science. Microsoft Research. Downloaded at http://research.microsoft.com/towards2020science/downloads/T2020S_Report.pdf>. Accessed 11/19.
  10. Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaible, E. and Burns, M. (2005). Using technology to train teachers [Online]. Available from infoDEV: http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.13.html (Accessed 4/12).
  12. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: a competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & S. Carsten (Eds.), Computer science education: perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–37). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: learning from the best. Oak Brook, Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  17. Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, R. (2019). Teacher Change Following a Professional Development Experience in Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4.
  19. Latour, B. (1993). Pasteur on lactic acid yeast: a partial semiotic analysis. In Configurations, 1.1 (pp. 129–146). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, I. (2016). Reclaiming the roots of CT. CSTA Voice-Special Issue on Computational Thinking, 12(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  22. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: modeling material kind. Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress, 39–74.Google Scholar
  23. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: what is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Portland, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Malyn-Smith, J., Lee, I. A., Martin, F., Grover, S., Evans, M. A., & Pillai, S. (2018). Developing a framework for computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2018. Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, F. (2018). Rethinking computational thinking. CSTA - The Advocate., (Feb. 17, 2018).Google Scholar
  29. Moursund, D. (2009). Computational thinking. IAE-pedia. Available online at <http://iaepedia.org/Computational_Thinking >. Accessed August 8, 2010.
  30. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for states, 793 by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. Proceedings of ICLS 2016 (pp. 705–712). Singapore. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/2016/Orton_et_al_ICLS_2016.pdf
  32. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierson, A.E., Brady, C.E. & Clark, D.B. (2019). Balancing the Environment: Computational Models as Interactive Participants in a STEM Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09797-5.
  35. President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC). (2005). Computational science: insuring America’s competitiveness. Washington, DC: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development. Retrieved from https://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050609_computational/computational.pdf
  36. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O'Grady-Cunniff, D., Owens, B. B., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K–12 computer science standards: revised 2011. ACM, New York, NY, USA: Technical Report.Google Scholar
  38. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18, 351–380.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: a worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In Handbook of learning analytics and educational data mining.Google Scholar
  40. Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E. A., et al. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. The International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011434026437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanton, J., Goldsmith, L., Adrion, W. R., Dunton, S., Hendrickson, K. A., Peterfreund, A., Yongpradit, P., Zarch, R., & Zinth, J. D. (2017). State of the states landscape report: state-level policies supporting equitable K–12 computer science education. Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. http://www.edc.org/state-states-landscape-report-state-level-policies-supporting-equitable-k-12-computer-science.Google Scholar
  45. Tarkan, S., Sazawal, V., Druin, A., Golub, E., Bonsignore, E. M., Walsh, G., & Atrash, Z. (2010). Toque: designing a cooking-based programming language for and with children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2417–2426). ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013, March). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 609–614). ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Uzzo, S., & Chen, R. (2015). Integrating computational thinking and environmental science: design based research on using simulated ecosystems to improve students understanding of complex system behavior. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1543144
  49. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilensky, U., Brady, C., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wilkerson, M., & Fenwick, M. (2016). The practice of using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.Google Scholar
  53. Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., & Fisser, P. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 1051–1067). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Looking Glass Ventures/Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.University of Massachusetts LowellLowellUSA
  4. 4.Education Development CenterWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations